Carve out the inside, insert space station. Voila.
Besides that though, is there even a way to get these minerals down to the Earth reliably and cheaply? I imagine there are reasons large re-entry vehicles carrying hundreds of tons worth of ore would not work.
Err no... I don't think this is particularly sufficient. Part of the reason Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is because of its gravity. In all honesty, I don't think there'll be any actual terraforming of Mars until we can smash a couple jovian moons into it and increase its mass. [And possibly jumpstart a new magnetic dynamo.]
Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later.
So what's the problem?
I can't possibly agree with you on this. If no harm is being done, then why prosecute for it? The ONLY connection to harm you can make, tenuous at best, is thoughtcrime: That someone who masturbates to child porn will become a person who harms children through child molestation.
nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy
...W-what? How is that even possible!?
Does this guy even know how nuclear power works? You heat up some water, which turns to steam, and then spin up some turbines. It's an entirely closed system; It doesn't produce carbon at all!
So how does carbon pollution even factor into this??
With the media as it is today, when they say "unnamed senior military leader" I hear "47 year old staff sergeant who provided a quote for a little cash under the table."
IMO It's perfectly alright to watch and read the news from the major media conglomerates, so long as you keep in mind they're never presenting the whole truth, and often even blatantly lying.
If I want the real story - I go on the internet and talk to people.
Here's a town where guns were *required by law* to be in every house.
When it was being written up, everyone was proclaiming there'd be bloodbaths in the streets, and violence would skyrocket with people shooting each other left and right over little disagreements.
The truth of the matter is that crime dropped immediately, down 89%. Now, it's a relatively small town [Though it's grown much larger since, and the crime rates have not.] but even if nothing had happened, if crime rates had not changed, that's more than enough to say "Why ban guns?" What's even more interesting is that gun crimes in places like Britain have been RISING since their gun bans have been in place. Though I understand this has been handwaved away as simply being the police reporting gun crimes properly now, instead of as other types of crime. [Here's a 2003 BBC citation on rising crime rates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3195908.stm#map And here's an article about the rise in crime in general: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html There are plenty more articles out there if you do some looking.]
The key thing people who want to ban guns do not fundamentally grasp is that guns do not cause crime. It's amazing how many people make this illogical conclusion: That if you give someone a gun, they will go out and commit crimes with it. Reality is drastically different of course.
Regardless of all these articles and statistics, at this point banning guns in America isn't going to work anyways. Too many people have one; guns, like drugs or alcohol, simply cannot be outright banned, no matter how much the state wants it to be so. Banning only drives them underground where they do not have proper oversight. Criminals will have guns regardless of the law.
As an example, [though not from the AP as far as I know, but a different news agency.] is the following picture of a woman holding up two bullets she claims were fired at her house by American soldiers.
Now for those unfamiliar with firearms - Yes those are indeed two bullets. However, note how pristine and unfired they are. You can see this sort of thing *a lot* in various forms of media if you look for it.
>I, like many others here, spotted the fact that this portrait was photoshopped (poorly) at a glance.
Wait, what? Seriously?
Are you sure you aren't just saying you saw through this? Because in all honesty had I seen the edited picture by itself, I would not have known in the slightest that it was photoshopped. I guess you can tell it's shooped because of the pixels and all the shooping you've done.
Personally, I'm actually wondering if the AP is trying to misrepresent this story, because I did not know it was possible to photoshop a terribly pixellated image into a nice crisp clear one so easily. Perhaps with a dedicated team of people spending many man-hours to do it... I have the feeling the only thing actually 'photoshopped' into this image is the flag in the background. The AP looks to have taken the original, made it a smaller resolution, and then blew it up in size to make it very obviously pixellated to further contrast the difference between the photos.
But if that is actually the case, then how the hell is the AP any different than the DoD? In fact, I'd say it's even worse if the AP is doing something like that.
Other than that you would have to create a new element that had an atomic mass smaller than hydrogen which I'm not sure if it is possible to even do. Atomic mass of 0 would be an interesting element for sure.
Hmmmm... an atomic mass smaller than hydrogen, possibly an atomic mass of zero. What, just what I say, has an atomic mass of zero!?
Why, nothing!
How about we make a weather balloon filled with nothing?
Here, let me take the same quote and highlight something else:
Christian Children's Fund made the decision to decline the gift from Gen Con, LLC as the request presented to us gave the appearance that CCF (the organization) was an endorser or supporter of a gaming convention, which CCF was not. As many non-profit organizations, CCF is selective in its endorsements or support in order to maintain the integrity of its name and logo. We cannot lend our name to an event for which we have no involvement. This decision should in no way be interpreted as CCF holding an opinion on Mr. Gygax, gaming enthusiasts or the game Dungeons and Dragons
Translation: "We can't take your money because we have an image to maintain!"
We had this discussion on 4chan already - if they won't take charity money because they don't want to be associated with GenCon, well, fuck'em. There are plenty of other charities out there that will not make this distinction and will happily accept our donation.
A few years ago, I was playing around throwing snowballs with some friends on new years, when I slipped on some ice and dislocated my knee. I'd done this before, and usually just relocating it and some ice is all that's needed. But the pain wasn't going away and it started to swell up. So I was driven down to the hospital at 3 AM. At this point the pain was really becoming unbearable.
So we get to the hospital, and I'm put on the waiting list. There were maybe two other people in the room with me. About 5 minutes after we arrived an ambulance came in with some car crash victims, and they were rushed through ER. Keep in mind, it's early morning on new years, so there's not a lot of staff. A nurse came by to check on me, and had me put into a wheelchair, but after that, nothing. For hours. I eventually fell asleep [Sorta, it's hard to fall asleep through pain - you keep waking up.] and was essentially ignored by the staff.
By midday, a doctor was finally able to see me [This is 13 hours after I had arrived.] he examined my leg, had an x-ray done, and asked the nurse to get a leg brace. The nurse was a very nice and polite doddering old lady, but unfortunately not quite experienced in the methods of applying a leg brace to a leg, as she put mine on backwards. To put it bluntly, this was the single most painful experience I've had in my entire life. I nearly passed out from the pain, and I'd have fallen over if I wasn't being held up. The leg brace I was given has a nice hole for the knee to poke through. My kneecap had the joy of being crushed by the side of the brace opposite this hole. After a quick breather and a few minutes rest another nurse helped put it on the proper way and I was given my prescription [Some tylenol 3's] and sent my merry way.
Needless to say, I was not impressed in the slightest. A couple days later I had an appointment with a knee specialist, my x-rays were examined, and he went over what needed to be done, and a date for surgery was set for me to go to in about a week's time. I must say the surgery was much more enjoyable than my prior trip to the hospital. I had a nice conversation with the doctors before I fell asleep, and a few hours later I woke up in a nice comfy bed. AFAIK, he'd performed an arthroscopy - removed some damaged miniscus tissue, and then sutured me back together.
After this I had about two weeks of bed rest with the brace. Before finally going in for the scheduled physiotherapy, which IIRC, I did a couple times a week for about 3 months. The physio nurses were pretty hot, I certainly enjoyed it.
And so ends my story with the Canadian healthcare system. Am I bitter or upset about it? No, not really. I received excellent care in the end, and my knee is back to being fully functional, enough such that I've applied for the Canadian Army. Would I want to change our current system? Yes, a little. I certainly would've loved not waiting for 13 hours to get a leg brace put on the wrong way, but aside from that, everything seemed to work quite well.
This picture shows how many asteroids there are in the inner solar system.
The high population of the main belt makes for a very active environment, where collisions between asteroids occur frequently. Collisions between main belt bodies with a mean radius of 10 km are expected to occur about once every 10 million years.
If you were to take a random picture of some place in the belt, you'd get nothing but blackness. If I recall correctly, the average distance between asteroids in the belt is around 100,000 miles. You have an extremely good chance of not hitting anything even by blindly going through.
Or they could just stay on the legal side of the line. I know a guy who protested outside of a scientology center and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing illegal about that. You could go around handing out flyers explaining to people who you view Scientology as dangerous and still not get arrested.
Well, this still isn't safe to do when the CoS is involved, but regardless of that I think it's quickly becoming apparent [especially to the younger crowd that make up these kinds of groups] that peaceful protests don't change anything anymore.
NASA pretty much doesn't have the budget anymore. They can't afford to keep the ISS running while operating all the various probes, funding new missions, and trying to develop new technology for more lunar missions.
2 million dollars is a steal to develop the landing/liftoff component of a new lunar module. I imagine if it were left up to NASA it'd cost ten times as much.
Except of course for the Alberta Progressive Conservative party, which reduced taxes, eliminated the deficit AND the provincial debt (it is now completely gone).
I know a few people who live in Alberta, from what they tell me, this wasn't some Conservative 'just as planned...' scheme. [How could the have predicted the jump in oil prices?] This was pure blind luck. Alberta was spending too much money a while back, and needed some major cutbacks to be made so that the province wasn't digging itself into a hole. As the years went on after these cutbacks, the increasing price in oil kick started the Albertan economy into high-gear.
Something I noticed immediately in the picture, was that the craters are a lot more reflective than what I typically see on, for instance, the moon. Certainly a lot more reflective than the rest of Mercury's surface.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures?
LASIK Advantages:
* Quick healing (driving vision the next day in most cases)
* Little chance of haze
* Re-treatments are easier
Disadvantages:
* Uses more tissue
* Can have flap complications (rare occurrence in good hands)
PRK Advantages:
* Uses less tissue
* No flap created so no chance of flap complication
Disadvantages:
* Healing takes longer than LASIK (driving vision in 4 to 14 days)
* Slight risk of haze (little risk with modern laser and adjunctive chemical therapy)
* Delayed epithelial healing
We do approximately 30% of our patients with PRK and find that the end result of the two procedures to be excellent.
This is from the FAQ of the guys who did my eye surgery. [I had PRK done, since I'm going in the army.] http://www.seewell.ca/index.html
Slashdot Mirror
Carve out the inside, insert space station. Voila.
Besides that though, is there even a way to get these minerals down to the Earth reliably and cheaply? I imagine there are reasons large re-entry vehicles carrying hundreds of tons worth of ore would not work.
Boat Moves Without an Engine Or Sails
the vikings fixed this problem long ago.
They sure did.
Sufficient Gravity - Check
Err no... I don't think this is particularly sufficient. Part of the reason Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is because of its gravity. In all honesty, I don't think there'll be any actual terraforming of Mars until we can smash a couple jovian moons into it and increase its mass. [And possibly jumpstart a new magnetic dynamo.]
Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later.
So what's the problem?
I can't possibly agree with you on this. If no harm is being done, then why prosecute for it? The ONLY connection to harm you can make, tenuous at best, is thoughtcrime: That someone who masturbates to child porn will become a person who harms children through child molestation.
Liberty or Security. Choose one.
Ha! Jokes on you, I play Eve.
...Well, not right now. Soon as I finish training Amarr Battleships III. [17 hours remaining!] But I do still play!
P.S. Someone please bid on my 29 million ISK Harbinger. [Just look for it under contracts.] What a horrible mistake I made with that ship. : (
Remember when the Australian censorship program was going to be opt-in and voluntary?
Yeah, that sure turned out well.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: the soapbox, the ballot box, the juror box, and the ammo box. Please use in that order."
Trivia: Most firearms and their use are banned in the UK.
nuclear emits about 25-times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy
...W-what? How is that even possible!?
Does this guy even know how nuclear power works? You heat up some water, which turns to steam, and then spin up some turbines. It's an entirely closed system; It doesn't produce carbon at all!
So how does carbon pollution even factor into this??
With the media as it is today, when they say "unnamed senior military leader" I hear "47 year old staff sergeant who provided a quote for a little cash under the table."
IMO It's perfectly alright to watch and read the news from the major media conglomerates, so long as you keep in mind they're never presenting the whole truth, and often even blatantly lying.
If I want the real story - I go on the internet and talk to people.
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
Here's a town where guns were *required by law* to be in every house.
When it was being written up, everyone was proclaiming there'd be bloodbaths in the streets, and violence would skyrocket with people shooting each other left and right over little disagreements.
The truth of the matter is that crime dropped immediately, down 89%. Now, it's a relatively small town [Though it's grown much larger since, and the crime rates have not.] but even if nothing had happened, if crime rates had not changed, that's more than enough to say "Why ban guns?" What's even more interesting is that gun crimes in places like Britain have been RISING since their gun bans have been in place. Though I understand this has been handwaved away as simply being the police reporting gun crimes properly now, instead of as other types of crime. [Here's a 2003 BBC citation on rising crime rates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3195908.stm#map And here's an article about the rise in crime in general: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html There are plenty more articles out there if you do some looking.]
The key thing people who want to ban guns do not fundamentally grasp is that guns do not cause crime. It's amazing how many people make this illogical conclusion: That if you give someone a gun, they will go out and commit crimes with it. Reality is drastically different of course.
Regardless of all these articles and statistics, at this point banning guns in America isn't going to work anyways. Too many people have one; guns, like drugs or alcohol, simply cannot be outright banned, no matter how much the state wants it to be so. Banning only drives them underground where they do not have proper oversight. Criminals will have guns regardless of the law.
As an example, [though not from the AP as far as I know, but a different news agency.] is the following picture of a woman holding up two bullets she claims were fired at her house by American soldiers.
Woman holds up two bullets.
Now for those unfamiliar with firearms - Yes those are indeed two bullets. However, note how pristine and unfired they are. You can see this sort of thing *a lot* in various forms of media if you look for it.
>I, like many others here, spotted the fact that this portrait was photoshopped (poorly) at a glance. Wait, what? Seriously?
Are you sure you aren't just saying you saw through this? Because in all honesty had I seen the edited picture by itself, I would not have known in the slightest that it was photoshopped. I guess you can tell it's shooped because of the pixels and all the shooping you've done.
Personally, I'm actually wondering if the AP is trying to misrepresent this story, because I did not know it was possible to photoshop a terribly pixellated image into a nice crisp clear one so easily. Perhaps with a dedicated team of people spending many man-hours to do it... I have the feeling the only thing actually 'photoshopped' into this image is the flag in the background. The AP looks to have taken the original, made it a smaller resolution, and then blew it up in size to make it very obviously pixellated to further contrast the difference between the photos.
But if that is actually the case, then how the hell is the AP any different than the DoD? In fact, I'd say it's even worse if the AP is doing something like that.
Other than that you would have to create a new element that had an atomic mass smaller than hydrogen which I'm not sure if it is possible to even do. Atomic mass of 0 would be an interesting element for sure.
Hmmmm... an atomic mass smaller than hydrogen, possibly an atomic mass of zero. What, just what I say, has an atomic mass of zero!?
Why, nothing!
How about we make a weather balloon filled with nothing?
Translation: "We can't take your money because we have an image to maintain!"
We had this discussion on 4chan already - if they won't take charity money because they don't want to be associated with GenCon, well, fuck'em. There are plenty of other charities out there that will not make this distinction and will happily accept our donation.
As another Canadian, I'll share my own anecdote:
A few years ago, I was playing around throwing snowballs with some friends on new years, when I slipped on some ice and dislocated my knee. I'd done this before, and usually just relocating it and some ice is all that's needed. But the pain wasn't going away and it started to swell up. So I was driven down to the hospital at 3 AM. At this point the pain was really becoming unbearable.
So we get to the hospital, and I'm put on the waiting list. There were maybe two other people in the room with me. About 5 minutes after we arrived an ambulance came in with some car crash victims, and they were rushed through ER. Keep in mind, it's early morning on new years, so there's not a lot of staff. A nurse came by to check on me, and had me put into a wheelchair, but after that, nothing. For hours. I eventually fell asleep [Sorta, it's hard to fall asleep through pain - you keep waking up.] and was essentially ignored by the staff.
By midday, a doctor was finally able to see me [This is 13 hours after I had arrived.] he examined my leg, had an x-ray done, and asked the nurse to get a leg brace. The nurse was a very nice and polite doddering old lady, but unfortunately not quite experienced in the methods of applying a leg brace to a leg, as she put mine on backwards. To put it bluntly, this was the single most painful experience I've had in my entire life. I nearly passed out from the pain, and I'd have fallen over if I wasn't being held up. The leg brace I was given has a nice hole for the knee to poke through. My kneecap had the joy of being crushed by the side of the brace opposite this hole. After a quick breather and a few minutes rest another nurse helped put it on the proper way and I was given my prescription [Some tylenol 3's] and sent my merry way.
Needless to say, I was not impressed in the slightest. A couple days later I had an appointment with a knee specialist, my x-rays were examined, and he went over what needed to be done, and a date for surgery was set for me to go to in about a week's time. I must say the surgery was much more enjoyable than my prior trip to the hospital. I had a nice conversation with the doctors before I fell asleep, and a few hours later I woke up in a nice comfy bed. AFAIK, he'd performed an arthroscopy - removed some damaged miniscus tissue, and then sutured me back together.
After this I had about two weeks of bed rest with the brace. Before finally going in for the scheduled physiotherapy, which IIRC, I did a couple times a week for about 3 months. The physio nurses were pretty hot, I certainly enjoyed it.
And so ends my story with the Canadian healthcare system. Am I bitter or upset about it? No, not really. I received excellent care in the end, and my knee is back to being fully functional, enough such that I've applied for the Canadian Army. Would I want to change our current system? Yes, a little. I certainly would've loved not waiting for 13 hours to get a leg brace put on the wrong way, but aside from that, everything seemed to work quite well.
http://kotaku.com/5071682/sarah-palin-to-shoot-moose-obama-in-mercs-2
Pretty clever advertising, I must admit.
The story is not false, just outdated. First an EA representative says if you're banned from the forums, you're banned in all EA games everywhere.
Then EA receives backlash from the community.
Slashdot posts story.
Suddenly it turns out this guy was totally wrong about the banning system, and was just talking out his arse.
Given EA's history, I know which side I'm leaning [actually, practically falling over] to.
The high population of the main belt makes for a very active environment, where collisions between asteroids occur frequently. Collisions between main belt bodies with a mean radius of 10 km are expected to occur about once every 10 million years.
If you were to take a random picture of some place in the belt, you'd get nothing but blackness. If I recall correctly, the average distance between asteroids in the belt is around 100,000 miles. You have an extremely good chance of not hitting anything even by blindly going through.
one of Steam's greatest features: unlimited installs on any PC.
Since when was this a feature? I mean, It's almost like saying "One of Steam's greatest features: Getting the game when you buy it."
Personally, I won't buy a game that limits the number of installs I can make.
Or they could just stay on the legal side of the line. I know a guy who protested outside of a scientology center and as far as I'm concerned there's nothing illegal about that. You could go around handing out flyers explaining to people who you view Scientology as dangerous and still not get arrested.
Well, this still isn't safe to do when the CoS is involved, but regardless of that I think it's quickly becoming apparent [especially to the younger crowd that make up these kinds of groups] that peaceful protests don't change anything anymore.
Why re-invent the wheel here?
Money.
NASA pretty much doesn't have the budget anymore. They can't afford to keep the ISS running while operating all the various probes, funding new missions, and trying to develop new technology for more lunar missions.
2 million dollars is a steal to develop the landing/liftoff component of a new lunar module. I imagine if it were left up to NASA it'd cost ten times as much.
So, how much do you want to bet that website like 4chan, 7chan, 99chan, 420chan, anonib, etc. etc. are all blocked as 'illegal' websites?
Except of course for the Alberta Progressive Conservative party, which reduced taxes, eliminated the deficit AND the provincial debt (it is now completely gone).
I know a few people who live in Alberta, from what they tell me, this wasn't some Conservative 'just as planned...' scheme. [How could the have predicted the jump in oil prices?] This was pure blind luck. Alberta was spending too much money a while back, and needed some major cutbacks to be made so that the province wasn't digging itself into a hole. As the years went on after these cutbacks, the increasing price in oil kick started the Albertan economy into high-gear.
Something I noticed immediately in the picture, was that the craters are a lot more reflective than what I typically see on, for instance, the moon. Certainly a lot more reflective than the rest of Mercury's surface.
Anyone have any idea why?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures?
LASIK Advantages:
* Quick healing (driving vision the next day in most cases)
* Little chance of haze
* Re-treatments are easier
Disadvantages:
* Uses more tissue
* Can have flap complications (rare occurrence in good hands)
PRK Advantages:
* Uses less tissue
* No flap created so no chance of flap complication
Disadvantages:
* Healing takes longer than LASIK (driving vision in 4 to 14 days)
* Slight risk of haze (little risk with modern laser and adjunctive chemical therapy)
* Delayed epithelial healing
We do approximately 30% of our patients with PRK and find that the end result of the two procedures to be excellent.
This is from the FAQ of the guys who did my eye surgery. [I had PRK done, since I'm going in the army.] http://www.seewell.ca/index.html